U.S. Department of EducationNovember 2002
2002-2003 No Child Left Behind—Blue Ribbon Schools Program
Cover Sheet
Name of Principal ______Dr. James Thompson
(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other) (As it should appear in the official records)
Official School Name ______Frank T. Simpson-WaverlyElementary School
(As it should appear in the official records)
School Mailing Address55 Waverly Street______
(If address is P.O. Box, also include street address)
Hartford _____Connecticut______06112-1699______
City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)
Tel. ( 860 )695-5160Fax (860 )724-3548
Website/URL Email:
I have reviewed the information in this application, including the eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my knowledge all information is accurate.
Date____March 14, 2003 ______
(Principal’s Signature)
Private Schools: If the information requested is not applicable, write N/A in the space.
Name of Superintendent ______Mr. Robert Henry
(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)
District NameHartford Public SchoolsTel. (860)695-8000
I have reviewed the information in this application, including the eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my knowledge it is accurate.
Date______(Superintendent’s Signature)
Name of School Board
President/Chairperson Rev. Wayne A. Carter
(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)
I have reviewed the information in this package, including the eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my knowledge it is accurate.
Date______
(School Board President’s/Chairperson’s Signature)
PART II DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
DISTRICT (Questions 12 not applicable to private schools)
1.Number of schools in the district: 27 Elementary schools
4 Middle schools
__N/A Junior high schools
3 High schools
34 TOTAL
2.District Per Pupil Expenditure: 10,500
Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: 7,669
SCHOOL (To be completed by all schools)
3.Category that best describes the area where the school is located:
[ x ]Urban or large central city
[ ]Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban area
[ ]Suburban
[ ]Small city or town in a rural area
[ ]Rural
4. 17 Number of years the principal has been in her/his position at this school.
5.Number of students enrolled at each grade level or its equivalent in applying school:
Grade / # of Males / # of Females / Grade TotalPre-K* / 24 / 16 / 40
K / 29 / 23 / 52
1 / 16 / 28 / 44
2 / 20 / 21 / 41
3 / 26 / 25 / 51
4 / 13 / 34 / 47
5 / 19 / 21 / 40
6 / 16 / 21 / 37
TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE APPLYING SCHOOL / 352
6.Racial/ethnic composition of .3 % White
the students in the school: 88.4 % Black or African American
11.0 % Hispanic or Latino
.3 % Asian/Pacific Islander
0 % American Indian/Alaskan Native
100% Total
7.Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year: _38.11%__
(1) / Number of students who transferred to the school after October 1 until the end of the year. / 68(2) / Number of students who transferred from the school after October 1 until the end of the year. / 57
(3) / Subtotal of all transferred students [sum of rows (1) and (2)] / 125
(4) / Total number of students in the school as of October 1 / 328
(5) / Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row (4) / .3811
(6) / Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100 / 38.11%
8.Limited English Proficient students in the school: ___0___%
___0___Total Number Limited English Proficient
Number of languages represented: ____0____
Specify languages:
9.Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: ___100___%
___352_Total Number Students Who Qualify*
* This count includes the Pre-Kindergarten ECAT program participants.
10.Students receiving special education services: ____15___%
____47__Total Number of Students Served
Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
__2_Autism____Orthopedic Impairment
____Deafness____Other Health Impaired
____Deaf-Blindness_24_Specific Learning Disability
____Hearing Impairment_11_Speech or Language Impairment
__5_Mental Retardation____Traumatic Brain Injury
____Multiple Disabilities____Visual Impairment Including Blindness
__4_Non-catergorial due to age __1_Socially/Emotionally disturbed
- Indicate number of fulltime and parttime staff members in each of the categories below:
Number of Staff
Full-timePart-Time
Administrator(s)___2______
Classroom teachers___18______
Special resource teachers/specialists___1______
Paraprofessionals__3.5______.5___
Support staff___5______
Total number_29.5______.5___
12.Student-“classroom teacher” ratio:_18 to 1
13.
2001-2002 / 2000-2001 / 1999-2000 / 1998-1999 / 1997-1998Daily student attendance / 94.5% / 95.7% / 94.7% / 97.9% / 97.2%
Daily teacher attendance / 96.30% / 95.57% / 95.44% / 91.06% / 92.51%
Teacher turnover rate / 0% / 13.5% / 3% / 14% / N/A
PART III – SUMMARY
Simpson-Waverly Elementary School Narrative
The Frank T. Simpson-Waverly Elementary School, located in Hartford, CT, is an oasis of academic excellence in the midst of crime and poverty. Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, is the second-poorest large city in America according to a Children’s Defend Fund Report. Yet despite all of the obstacles to life in the inner city, our school provides an atmosphere that fosters academic rigor in a nested learning community. The expectations of high academic achievement, in conjunction with creative, goal oriented staff and strong leadership from the building administration, has transformed this school from a low to moderately low performing city school to a top performer within the Hartford metro area. The school has its roots deeply imbedded in the urban neighborhood that surrounds it. Its namesake is a man who was dedicated to his community and the education of children. In keeping with his commitment to education, Simpson–Waverly honors his legacy through our mission of “Teaching for Learning”.
Our school is situated in the northeast end of Hartford and is located only one mile from Main Street. Our close proximity to institutions of higher learning such as Trinity College, the University of Hartford, St. Joseph's College, and UCONN-West Hartford facilitates easy access to resources for faculty and students. As these institutions are resources to our school, our school is a resource to neighboring transitional suburban schools that are beginning to experience a more diverse student population.
Our school provides instruction for youngsters from pre-school through grade six. The school is also home to a City Day Care Center and a Head Start Center. The Early Childhood Program includes three extended-day kindergarten classes and several preschool special education programs. A team approach model, integrating special needs children within the Day Care, Head Start and Kindergarten classrooms, provides for heterogeneous grouping for three, four, and five year old children. This provides a smooth transition into the first and second grades. For students in grades three through six, the school offers the Classical Magnet Program. This program, which began in 1994, gives students the opportunity to study the classics through materials provided by St. John’s College in Maryland. Weekly seminars are led by classroom teachers who have been trained in the Classical Magnet model and supported through monthly lectures on related topics delivered by Trinity College professors. The teachers and administration adopted this model because it offers a foundation in the classics and promotes higher order thinking by training students to critique and analyze information.
The development and implementation of instructional practices occurs through a team approach where the instructional leadership fosters a partnership with teachers. The foundation of this team approach is based on the philosophy that the administration is accountable to teachers and teachers are accountable to students. This collaborative climate promotes high staff retention. This relationship also promotes the development of a highly effective, multi-layered professional development plan that provides training and workshops at the district and school level. At the classroom level, modeling and workshops are provided to address our school community’s specific instructional needs.
The instructional staff and administration have worked hard to develop strong partnerships with community agencies, foundations, other educational institutions and programs. Our partnerships include the Sister School Partnership with Elmer-Thienes-Mary Hall and the Mystic Aquarium partnership. Simpson-Waverly also participates in two successful mentoring programs: Governor’s Prevention Partnership Mentoring Program and the Simpson-Waverly Mentoring Program.
Our school has been successful in achieving its mission of “Teaching for Learning” through a comprehensive, data-driven, research-based school improvement plan that is implemented in collaboration with staff, parents, and community representatives. A highly dedicated and qualified staff of experienced teachers, with a commitment for making a difference, contributes to our increasing success in furthering student achievement. Simpson-Waverly has successfully achieved a unique balance between fulfilling the needs of a neighborhood school and satisfying the demands of an urban school system, ensuring that no child is left behind
PART IV – INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS
The Connecticut (CT) State Department of Education has stated in its five-year plan that its first goal is “to set and meet high expectations for academic achievement for all students.” The Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is the tool used to assess the state’s progress towards meeting that goal. The CMT assesses essential reading, writing and mathematic skills expected to be mastered by most students by the end of the 3rd and 5th grades. The test has evolved since 1980’s from a 1st to a 2nd Generation and onto the 3rd Generation, launched in the fall of 2000. The major changes that have improved the quality and usefulness of the test in mathematics include new extended problem solving tasks designed to assess integrated mathematical understanding, a better balance of test items, and a close alignment with the new CT mathematics framework. The 3rd Generation language arts CMT is aligned with the performance standards delineated in CT’s Language Arts Curriculum framework and assesses student performance on skills mastered by the end of grades 3 and 5. The CMT and other assessment tools have also been utilized by our School Improvement Team to assess progress towards the goals outlined in the School Improvement Plan. Similar to the state goals, our goals include increasing academic achievement in reading, math and writing.
Unlike the 2nd Generation CMT, in the 3rd Generation there is an expectation that all students take the tests. In the past, students who were designated as special education (SpEd) were exempt from taking the test. Currently, 80% of our SpEd students take the test at their appropriate grade level, although a SpEd student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) may specify that the test be given on that child’s instructional level. A test administered at the child’s instructional level is referred to as an “Out of Level Test” and assesses the same content material, but at a more appropriate level.
The 2002 CMT results in mathematics show that 83% of the 4th grade students scored at or above the proficient level, with the remaining 17% scoring at the basic level. This represents an increase of eight percentage-points from the 2000 scores where 75% of students were at or above proficiency. The 2002 scores are also 2% above the statewide percentage for at or above proficiency. Although a direct comparison would not be valid between the 2nd and 3rd Generation tests, it is significant to note that only 18% of the 4th graders tested in 1998 met the state math goal, leaving 82% of the 4th graders scoring below state goal. Our 6th grade students share the dramatic increase in math achievement made by 4th graders between 1998 and 2002. In fact more of our 6th graders have scored at or above proficiency than their statewide cohorts for the past 3 years, 2000-2002. The 6th graders had a 10 percentage-point increase from their 2000 CMT results of 81% at or above proficiency to the current 2002 results of 93% at or above proficiency, with an additional 3% percent at the advanced level. In the 1998 2nd Generation test only 27% of the 6th graders met the state math goal, leaving 73% of the grade 6 students below the state goal in mathematics. The 2002 results indicate that only 7% of 6th graders scored at the basic level.
There are similar increases in CMT reading performance in both 4th and 6th grades in the past 5 years. For example, 72% of our 4th graders are at or above proficiency level, with 5% at the advanced level on the 2002 CMT. This represents a 10% increase above the 2000 results. The 2001and the 2002 results indicate that more of our fourth graders scored at or above proficiency than the statewide percentage for that same year. In the CMT 2nd Generation, only 16% of the 4th graders tested in 1998 met the state goal, leaving 84% of the 4th graders below the state goal. Currently, the 2002 assessment year, only 24% of 4th graders are at or below the basic level. The 6th grade 2002 CMT reading results show that 77% of our 6th graders are at or above proficiency level with 7% at the advanced level. This represents a 5% increase above the 2000 results. Our 2001 results show that while only 75% of 6th graders statewide scored at or above proficiency, 81% of our 6th graders scored at or above proficiency. In the 1998 CMT 2nd Generation, only 28% of the 6th graders met the state goal, with the remaining 72% of the 6th graders scoring below state goal.
These results reinforce our belief that the educational needs of our students are met through the application of data-driven, research-based best practices. The school-wide gains further highlight our efforts at closing the achievement gap through innovative approaches to fulfilling our mission of “Teaching for Learning”.
- Show how the school uses assessment data to understand and improve student and school performance.
Our teachers, assistant principal and principal have developed and implemented a process involving the review of student portfolios and assessment data provided by the state, the district and the school. This mechanism is called the Student Academic Review Process. The purpose of the Review Process is to monitor student programs through the review of portfolios, facilitates the development of student intervention plans, and identifies targeted professional development. The foundation of the process is built on self-evaluation and peer-evaluation through a team approach. The team is comprised of experienced teachers on staff, an administration representative, a Student Support Team member, and a reading, writing and math specialist.
The Academic Review team meets once a month to review student work and assessment data with the classroom teacher and brainstorm to find alternative strategies to address the data-identified learning gaps. This process also allows the teachers to tap into the expertise of educators, while also garnering support for the variety of learning styles in the classroom. The Review Process also drives the professional development program by identifying the needs that are highlighted by the data from their individual classrooms.
Along with the Review team, The School Improvement Team (SIT) analyzes and reviews the various assessment tools in order to monitor the progress of our students. The goals of the School Improvement Plan focuses on student academic achievement in math, writing and reading; therefore, the results of the CMT and other assessment tools are integral to the planning process of the SIT. These results determine the benchmarks set by the SIT in order to continue moving forward towards the academic achievement of every student. The Academic Review Process in conjunction with the School Improvement Plan uses assessment data as the foundation to the on-going growth and success of our students.
- Describe how the school communicates student performance, including assessment data, to parents, students, and the community.
Simpson-Waverly school communicates student performance, including assessment data, to parents, students, and the community using a “community inclusion” philosophy. The task of “community inclusion” has been addressed and outlined in the School Improvement Plan that was developed by the School Improvement Team. The team developed a step-by-step plan to increase parent and community awareness of student and school performance.
The communication plan includes Parent/Teacher conferences, Student/Parent/Teacher conferences, Parent/ Teacher Organization (PTO) meetings, Parent workshops and other school sponsored programs. For example, “Back to School Night” is a school-sponsored program where various community agencies are invited to join our students and parents in celebrating the beginning of the school year. At this event parents can benefit from informational booths promoting topics relating to “How to Support Your Learner”. Finally, parents can find school information through our monthly Parent Newsletter.
The school’s effort to communicate student performance is successful as evidenced by a better than 95% parent participation in Parent/Teacher conferences. During these conferences teachers review assessment data and various benchmarks to help parents understand the meaning of the data as it reflects their child’s educational progress. Finally, the Parenting Center provides parents with a venue to attend workshops, meetings and as a place to view student work. The success of our students would not be possible without the purposeful work of informing and involving everyone in the challenges and rewards in continued academic achievement.
4. Describe how the school will share its successes with other schools.
The intent of the Simpson-Waverly staff is to provide information to other districts, locally or nationally, on our best practices. Further follow-up, to support other schools with visits and on-going contact, can guide these schools and districts in the understanding and implementation of a School Improvement Plan, the Student Academic Review Process and other successful strategies. The Student Academic Review Process is a tool for gauging student performance through various assessment tools and a mechanism to address the achievement gaps highlighted by the data. Our staff hopes to share this mechanism for addressing the stubborn achievement gaps throughout the state and nation. We are eager to share our success and exchange ideas on “things that work” with others and then help to support other schools in finding ways to adjust the new strategies to meet the individual needs of the school or classroom.
Our principal has already toured many schools to share our School Improvement Plan and Academic Review Process. We have developed a pamphlet and a protocol so that others can replicate the process and we encourage guests to join us during one of our Academic Review sessions. In addition, several staff members have shared learning strategies as part of the professional development program not only for our district teachers, but also for other districts. Our plan is to submit proposals to present our ideas at state and national conferences in order encourage other schools to use assessment data to direct the development of new learning and teaching strategies and targeted professional development.